Pentagon Launches Operation ‘Guardian of Prosperity’ to Protect Red Sea from Houthi Attacks

It all depends when and where you start the narrative to see who is defending and who is attacking.

The neocons, however, have an offensive strategy. It is best understood by the name of the organization they had once started: the Project for a New American Century.

Iran' strategy is ultimately defensive. Even the names reveal the ultimate defensive aspect to them. Axis of Resistance, Forward Defense Strategy, etc.

 

Some people like to subjugate themselves, though I've never understood why.

 

I guess to me, Iran's interests are not clear.

What interest is it protecting by launching offensive campaigns against both Israel and Western powers? What was the threat to Iran necessitating it's "forward defense?" I wasn't familiar (except through it's responses to past conflicts) with the Iranian military strategy, so I read this short essay:

Upgrading Iran’s Military Doctrine: An Offensive “Forward Defense”

That explained the "how." A smaller country looking to tangle with stronger conventional militaries needs to expand it's arsenal of responses beyond the conventional; I get that. But that doesn't to me explain the "why;" the national strategy, and what goal Iran seeks by shutting down the world economy, which could invite a direct response to Iran, not just to it's expendable proxies.

This isn't forward defense, this is forward offense.

 

There is nothing defensive about arming groups and having them attack Israel, nor is "Death to Israel" a particularly defensive statement or attitude.

Anyway, the real problem seems to be Small Man Syndrome. The leaders of Russia, Iran and North Korea are all 5' 7" short.



Food for thought.

 

Iran's interests, as understood within the context of Iran's revolutionary ideology, consist of those things which better enable or empower it to:

1. thwart efforts to undermine its regime from within;
2. resist foreign interference and dictates as it relates to Iranian policies on a host of issues, including prominently Iran's nuclear program, space program, military programs, and such other programs which are the primary focus of foreign interference aimed at weakening and limiting Iranian power;
3. develop alliances abroad with states and groups with complementary interests as Iran.

Leaving aside the huge load of facts and history relating to economic, diplomatic, covert and overt actions taken against Iran for many years which your comment neglects and skips over to give it an "offensive" characterization, the short answer is that it is meant to keep the theater of the fighting away from Iran itself.

1. Iran has been facing threats and acts against it by the US for many decades -- and by Israel most clearly since the heightened focus on its nuclear program especially coinciding with the rise of neocons in the Bush administration from 2000 onward. The main threat comprised of weakening Iran economically (including via sanctions), politically (including via acts of sabotage and terrorism within Iran), diplomatically (including by penalizing any form of normal trade relations with Iran by other countries), and military (including even a change in US military doctrine to allow the first use of nukes against a non-nuclear power like Iran), and more...
2. Iran has not shut down the world economy. If it had even tried, its repercussions would be immediate and unmistakable. Iran's capabilities in this regard are enormous. Iran has merely given messages and signals of what it could/might do if it is pushed too far.

 

World·THE WARZONE
U.S. Fighter Downs Houthi Missile Heading Toward USS Laboon

 

Oops.

World·Kyiv Independent
Reuters: Houthis accidentally target cargo ship carrying Russian oil

 

Iran is trying to replicate the success of the oil embargoes of the 70s that forced European countries to throw Israel under the bus.

 

Add the collective paranoia specific to authoritarian regimes and you have the perfect recipe for Iran's (and Russia's) strategy.

Iran and Russia are basically trying to do the exact same thing: create around their countries a ring of vassal entities that will act as a physical barrier between them and the outer, sane world.

 

To summarize Iran's interests then, it's the survival of the regime?

That of course usually is the number one goal of of any regime, but again, Iran's current actions don't seem to be in keeping with that goal. Reading your comments, it seems that you view the current actions as just part of a long war against the West in general and the United States in particular, with the October 7th terrorist attack merely another action providing opportunity to attack the West.

To me, it looks like Iranian leadership got caught up in it's anti-Jew hysteria brought about by October 7th and just decided to unleash it's proxies and let things fly. And I say that because I'm not seeing an endgame in pushing a military confrontation with the United States that benefits Iran. How does any of this move Iran further across the board?

 

What I said was the actual summary. What you have said are your views, not mine. Even this report an hour ago does a better job IMO explaining the issue than what you wrote.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-iran-battle-proxies-warily-124311756.html

U.S. and Iran Battle Through Proxies, Warily Avoiding Each Other

 

I always question what stock foreigners put in the content of The New York Times. I realize that OSINT analysts for foreign intelligence services (in this case Iran) looks for clues as to US administration viewpoints and intentions in the same way CIA analysts would scour Pravda for clues about Soviet leadership. The Times and of course The Washington Post are administration/establishment tools to influence opinion, not just inform, and their targets are as often their own establishment as it is foreign readers. Based on the level of English you've demonstrated on this forum (excellent by the way!), it probably didn't escape your attention that this article was about 30% actual news and about 70% "analysis." or opinion really.

Given that, I don't think this story tells the tale you think it does.

"But 100 days into the conflict, the assessment of most of the key players is that Iran has pushed its proxies to make trouble for the U.S. military and to pressure Israel and the West in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the shipping lanes of the Red Sea while going to some lengths to avoid provoking a larger eruption."

Is that what's happening? Or have we just not worked up to a direct confrontation yet?

"The evidence of caution is piecemeal, but everywhere.

Although Iran has ramped up its production of uranium drastically in recent weeks — renewing fears that it may be speeding again toward the capability of fabricating several nuclear weapons — it has carefully kept just below the threshold for bomb-grade fuel. That is considered the red line that could trigger military action against its underground nuclear complexes."

Hasn't that just been the status quo? Not a signal of "caution?"

But to me, here's the kicker:

"However happy Iranian leaders may be to stir the pot in the Middle East, all-out war is not in the interests of a country whose supreme leader is in poor health and whose streets have been filled with protesters in recent years. What the Iranian leadership cares about the most is “regime stability,” said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. diplomat."

I agree. An all out war isn't in the regime's interest, or at least it's interest as I've thought it should be as I've posted in this thread. However that's simply Westerners trying to apply Western mindsets to people who do not share that mindset. In truth, neither I nor Crocker have any idea of the intentions of the Iranian regime, but if it was "regime stability" it wouldn't be trying to escalate tensions like this.

 

If Iran wanted war, it has both plenty of excuses and a lot of means to start one. But if you like to believe or push a narrative that says otherwise, that is fine too. It enhances Iran's leverage since there is no way the US would want to start a war with Iran. Israel and its agents are the only ones pushing for military action against Iran and even they are doing so on the assumption Iran will chicken out. A reasonable enough assumption, but if there is a no holds bar war, Israel (or whatever remains of it) won't like it anymore than all those whose livelihoods in the West would be drastically affected by it. There wouldn't be much left of Iran or its regime to find out how Iran feels about it either.

 

first truthful thing you've posted

 

Although I agree about the means, I disagree about the "plenty of excuses."

And I'm not talking about Israel (I think there may be a strong case on the Iranian side for that), I'm talking about everyone else. I'm referring to the military actions that Iran has sponsored through it's proxies, unless you are taking the position that Houthi attacks against the US military and US flagged shipping has NOTHING to do with Iran.

That simply doesn't seem credible to me, and doubt that's your position that Iran has no influence on Houthi military actions.


That's how you get your war, if you want it. I guess the survival of the regime may not be number one after all.

 

Now there will be hell to pay.


Yemen’s Houthi militants strike U.S.-owned ship, Centcom says

 

The facts suggest otherwise.

 

Well you've yet to square that circle.

 

Iran isn't interfering with oil shipments - the U.S. is.

Russia creates vassal entities like the U.S. created the vassal entity in Egypt. However, the same cannot be said for Iran.

Iran is simply providing weapons and expertise for countries to be able to defend themselves.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Again: None of that stands a chance against the minor amount of forces we have in the gulf at the moment.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. PLEASE don't take my word for it. PLEASE **** with the boats. I ****ing dare you.

 

**** with the boats.

 

All Iran has to do is give up

 

U.S. forces recovered Iranian warheads in Navy SEAL mission gone awry
By Alex Horton

 

boy you guys milk an obscure American think tank for all its worth